FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 05/26/ :39 AM INDEX NO /2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 582 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/26/2017

Transcription

1 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK X VIJAY SINGH, : Index No.: /2013 : Plaintiff, : Hon. Eileen Bransten, Justice. : v. : : NOTICE OF APPEAL PGA TOUR, INC., : : Defendant. : X PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant PGA TOUR, Inc. (the TOUR ) hereby appeals to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, in and for the First Judicial Department, from those parts of the Decision and Order of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, denying the TOUR s Motion for Summary Judgment (Motion Sequence Number 010), which was signed by the Honorable Justice Eileen Bransten on May 12, 2017 and entered in the Office of the New York County Clerk on May 15, of 33

2 Dated: May 26, 2017 New York, New York Respectfully submitted, SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP By: /s/ Anthony J. Dreyer Jeffrey A. Mishkin Anthony J. Dreyer Michael H. Menitove Four Times Square New York, NY (212) Attorneys for Defendant PGA TOUR, Inc. To: Peter R. Ginsberg Peter R. Ginsberg Law, LLC 80 Pine Street, 33rd Floor New York, NY Jeffrey S. Rosenblum Rosenblum & Reisman PC Triad Centre III 6070 Poplar Avenue, Fifth Floor Memphis, TN Attorneys for Plaintiff Vijay Singh 2 2 of 33

3 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION: FIRST DEPARTMENT X VIJAY SINGH, : Index No.: /2013 : Plaintiff-Respondent. : Supreme Court, New York County : v. : : PRE-ARGUMENT STATEMENT PGA TOUR, INC., : : Defendant-Appellant. : X Defendant-Appellant PGA TOUR, Inc. (the TOUR ), by its undersigned attorneys, respectfully submits the following Pre-Argument Statement pursuant to Section of the Rules of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Judicial Department. 1. Title of Action: The title of the proceeding is set forth in the caption above. 2. Full Names of Original Parties and Any Change in the Parties: The full names of the original parties are those identified in the caption above. There has been no change in the parties during the pendency of this action. 3. Name, Address and Telephone Number of Counsel for Defendant-Appellant: Jeffrey A. Mishkin Anthony J. Dreyer Michael H. Menitove Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Four Times Square New York, NY (212) Name, Address and Telephone Number of Counsel for Plaintiff-Respondent: Peter R. Ginsberg Peter R. Ginsberg Law, LLC 80 Pine Street, 33rd Floor New York, NY (646) of 33

4 Jeffrey S. Rosenblum Rosenblum & Reisman PC Triad Centre III 6070 Poplar Avenue, Fifth Floor Memphis, TN (901) Court and County from which the Appeal is Taken: This appeal is taken from the Decision and Order, dated May 12, 2017, of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County (Honorable Eileen Bransten), which was filed with the Office of the Clerk of the County of New York on May 15, A copy of the Decision and Order is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 6. Nature and Object of the Cause of Action: The TOUR administers an Anti- Doping Program (the TOUR Program ) applicable to members of, and players competing on, certain golf tours it operates, including the PGA TOUR. In a January 29, 2013 Sports Illustrated article, Plaintiff Vijay Singh ( Singh ), a long-standing PGA TOUR member subject to the TOUR Program, admitted to using a deer antler spray product known as the Ultimate Spray, which was advertised as containing IGF-1 a growth hormone that is a prohibited substance under the TOUR Program. The TOUR spoke with Singh, who confirmed his use of the Ultimate Spray and agreed to provide the TOUR with a bottle of the product. The TOUR sent that bottle for analysis to the UCLA Olympic Analytical Laboratory, which reported that the bottle contained IGF-1. Based on Singh s admitted use of a product found to contain a prohibited substance under the TOUR Program, the TOUR notified Singh that he had committed an antidoping violation. Although the TOUR Program authorized the TOUR to suspend Singh for up to one year and fine him up to $500,000 for the violation, the TOUR only sought to impose a suspension of three months and no fine. The TOUR did not publicly announce the sanction while Singh exercised his right under the TOUR Program to appeal to an arbitration panel. 2 4 of 33

5 Singh was permitted to continue playing in TOUR events during the pendency of his appeal. While Singh s appeal was pending, the TOUR was informed that the World Anti-Doping Agency ( WADA ) would not consider the use of deer antler spray containing IGF-1 to violate the WADA Code, unless it resulted in a positive drug test. WADA s Code and the TOUR Program are similar but separate and distinct anti-doping programs. Therefore, WADA s interpretation of the WADA Code is not binding on the TOUR s administration of the TOUR Program. However, the TOUR decided to accept WADA s view in this instance and, as a result, rescinded its sanction of Singh. Accordingly, Singh did not serve a single day of his suspension. After his suspension was withdrawn, Singh sued the TOUR, asserting seven causes of action, including three counts of negligence, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of fiduciary duty, intentional infliction of emotional distress and conversion. 7. Result Reached in the Court Below: On February 13, 2014, the court dismissed five of the seven claims in Singh s complaint. On June 2, 2016, the TOUR moved for summary judgment on the two remaining claims for (1) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and (2) conversion. Singh cross-moved for partial summary judgment on the liability portion of his implied covenant claim. On May 12, 2017, the court granted in part the TOUR s motion for summary judgment, dismissing Singh s conversion claim and two of Singh s implied covenant theories. Specifically, the court dismissed the portions of Singh s implied covenant claim based on allegations that the TOUR (1) treated Singh differently than other golfers who had used deer antler spray and (2) failed to test a bottle [of deer antler spray] used by Plaintiff or failed to further test the compound IGF-1 to determine whether it was active. (Ex. A, Decision and Order at 20.) The court denied the TOUR s summary judgment motion with regard to Singh s two remaining 3 5 of 33

6 implied covenant theories, which claim that the TOUR breached implied obligations by (1) failing to consult WADA and/or appreciate the information advanced by WADA concerning deer antler spray prior to issuing its suspension of Plaintiff and (2) allegedly making improper public statements concerning Singh s use of deer antler spray. (Id. at 16-18, 20.) The court denied Singh s motion for partial summary judgment in its entirety. 8. Grounds for Seeking Reversal: For the reasons stated below, the TOUR seeks reversal of those portions of the Decision and Order denying the TOUR s motion for summary judgment on Singh s claim alleging that the TOUR breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing: (a) The court erroneously held that there is a material fact dispute as to whether the TOUR breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by failing to conduct an appropriate investigation as that term is used in the TOUR Program when it did not consult WADA and/or appreciate the information advanced by WADA concerning deer antler spray prior to issuing its suspension of Plaintiff. (Id. at 12, 20.) No such implied obligation can exist as a matter of law and, in any event, Singh cannot establish that the TOUR acted arbitrarily, irrationally or in bad faith. (b) The court erroneously held that there is a material fact dispute as to whether the TOUR breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by improperly making public statements regarding Singh s use of deer antler spray (id. at 16-18) because the TOUR s statements do not implicate any implied obligation arising from the parties contractual relationship and, in any event, Singh cannot establish that the TOUR s statements were made arbitrarily, irrationally or in bad faith. 4 6 of 33

7 (c) Singh has no admissible evidence regarding an essential element of his claim: that the TOUR s alleged breach of an implied obligation caused him cognizable damage. This deficiency alone requires dismissal of Singh s implied covenant claim. 9. Related Actions or Proceedings Now Pending in Any Court and Additional Appeals: None. Dated: May 26, 2017 New York, New York Respectfully submitted, SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP By: /s/ Anthony J. Dreyer Jeffrey A. Mishkin Anthony J. Dreyer Michael H. Menitove Four Times Square New York, NY (212) Attorneys for Defendant PGA TOUR, Inc. TO: Clerk of the Supreme Court of the State of New York 60 Centre Street New York, New York Peter R. Ginsberg Peter R. Ginsberg Law, LLC 80 Pine Street, 33rd Floor New York, NY Jeffrey S. Rosenblum Rosenblum & Reisman PC Triad Centre III 6070 Poplar Avenue, Fifth Floor Memphis, TN Attorneys for Plaintiff Vijay Singh 5 7 of 33

8 EXHIBIT A 8 of 33

9 ï ±º îë 9 of 33

10 î ±º îë 10 of 33

11 í ±º îë 11 of 33

12 ì ±º îë 12 of 33

13 ë ±º îë 13 of 33

14 ê ±º îë 14 of 33

15 é ±º îë 15 of 33

16 è ±º îë 16 of 33

17 ç ±º îë 17 of 33

18 ï𠱺 îë 18 of 33

19 ïï ±º îë 19 of 33

20 ïî ±º îë 20 of 33

21 ïí ±º îë 21 of 33

22 ïì ±º îë 22 of 33

23 ïë ±º îë 23 of 33

24 ïê ±º îë 24 of 33

25 ïé ±º îë 25 of 33

26 ïè ±º îë 26 of 33

27 ïç ±º îë 27 of 33

28 î𠱺 îë 28 of 33

29 îï ±º îë 29 of 33

30 îî ±º îë 30 of 33

31 îí ±º îë 31 of 33

32 îì ±º îë 32 of 33

33 îë ±º îë 33 of 33